Comments by "Laurence Fraser" (@laurencefraser) on "Should Cities Get Rid of On-Street Parking?" video.

on the other hand, stripping out carparks for bus lanes when the bus doesn't actually stop anywhere near that spot without doing anything to actually improve the road for pedestrians and cyclists (though, to be fair, in the specific example the footpath and crossings weren't too bad for pedestrians) IS fairly likely to have a negative impact if not compensated for in some fashion. Simple fact is that most of the time people don't have all the data, and some of what they do have is misleading junk data (due to propaganda). Also, some people are just idiots, though that's a lesser factor.
45
@crazyboydakota depends on how you position the trees and utilities relative to each other (and what sort of trees you use). It's absolutely a consideration, but it's not universily a problem.
37
@jamalgibson8139 The problem with telling suburbanites to suck it up and use public transit is, of course, the main places where public transit is terrible to non-existant. Though that's a bit of a chicken and egg problem in some respects. And the solution is fixing the public transit.
20
@Sparticulous strictly speaking even suburbia doesn't Require cars... Public transit is entirely doable, just massivley less efficient than it should be. And even that issue can be reduced or eliminated if the suburbs are actually built around the idea that people will be traveling by way of walking or biking to the local train station or the like most of the time.
12
@JAKempelly people will drive faster on a road with no onstreet parking... if it still has the full paved space that the onstreet parking would normally occupy. Stick islands, trees, etc. in there so the actual bit of road they're driving on is narrower, they will generally slow down (occasional idiots aside).
5
which makes perfect sense. Provided your bus or light rail is actually covering the trip that the people using the cars parking there would be making. If they're coming from places your route doesn't serve though, you're kind of screwing people over if you don't provide alternatived parking (well, assuming they still have to go to that specific destination.)
4
Proper public transit infrastructure would account for and mitigate this issue, well, depending on the exact disability in question, I suppose.... but it would still be far from perfect, I suspect (it's also Far cheaper. Again, if done right). But failing that, much more limited on street parking that's reserved for special use cases such as disabled persons and not available for general use at all ever would still be a step up (after all, there are less disabled people who require it than non-disabled people who would simply like to have it). Parking buildings are pretty rubbish in general, really.
3
@rjfaber1991 well, they'll turn up in droves provided the area is actually Accessable from where they live/work without a car. Plenty of cities aren't set up that way (despite the fact that they really should be.)
3
@zivkovicable well, there is an element of culture and attitude: Convincing the officials to actually do the thing to begin with. ... and even then, it's more a case of overcoming propaganda from certain (very wealthy) groups that benefit more from car-centric infrastructure.
2
mind you, the usual way of providing off street parking (a small lot of 8 to 16 spaces for one to four shops immediately on the other side of the footpath from the road) can be a major safety hazard on busy roads, especially near intersections and when that parking is also used by employees... and as a loading area for commercial vehicals (add a couple of inconveninently placed poles for powerlines and street lights plus the pillars in the actual car and experience the joys of multiple near misses with traffic accidents in the course of one attempt to park simply due to a badly possitioned work truck and obstructed sight lines!) I'm sure it's fine if done properly. It's VERY easy to do improperly.
1